Show ? Another deluded con artiste
imagining a grand standing performance as if anyone else is
interested in this debate.
Really ? I used to think like tis too but in reality there r
people reading.
This is just plain vanity if you
believe any one is interested to read the complete reply, the
"wall of text" is enough to piss everyone off - as seen by
Hyperfocal's reaction.
Have you misled yourself by seeing
the number of hits scored on this thread ?
Just visiting and get turned off
- does not amount to any reading. If there are any serious
readers, they would have jumped on the band wagon, and there will
be surely quite a sparkling slug-fest.
Have you been able to point to any
dishonesty on anyone's part - without pointing at your own ? Or
have you been avoiding the real issues by beating around the bush
?
Are the words insults filled to
the brim, or simply the truth about the perverse style
that reflects your character that begin in the nick that you
have chosen - "stupid-is-smart" ?
Again another piece of useless paragraph tat has no information
except accusations. Why don't u show evidence to support your above
stand rather than making conclusions and accusations
No information except
accusations ? No evidence to support what was said ?
Are you not being over-anxious to
expect the water to boil immediately when the fire is started ? Is
there any need to accuse you, when the conclusion itself
is obvious when looking at the facts you have presented
?
You did suggest that my
character "A" is lighter and with the organs starving of nutrients
and whose "outburst" will result in your preferred "implosion"
- that will result in your preferred "collapse" from
sheer weakness. Having been so quick and able to
diagnose the final end to Character "A" - why will you
hesistate to conclude that Charater
"B" severe overweight will surely lead to diabetes
with kidney failure and early death as the final end ?
Again a dishonest claim u made. The description I am talking
about A is my impression of your claims on A. Lets look back at
history again
1. I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode
is probably just wild guesses.
on the reply 10 jul 1022 am. Tis is the first "description" of A
on implosion. Notice the word "your theory", Atobe's Theory
2. Which is derived from your reply on 10 Jul 123
The pent-up social
pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when
social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll
out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political
swings that are unpredictable.
3.
In here, if u have extreme pressure on u, it implodes, which is
something u do not agree. All the while we r arguing on the choice
of word on "implosion"
The problem seems
to be with your inability to be patient with
your mind that are reading slower then your eyes,
which speed ahead of your mind to form its own
visual conclusions without the mind doing the
thinking.
The other possibility for your
errors maybe due to your anxiety to score points at the
expense of accuracy in understanding the issues before forming an
opinion.
Key words in my sentence that you
have quoted above are underlined now and are as
follows: - " pent-up social
pressures may lead to a Krakatoa
volcanic outburst,
when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll
out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that
are unpredictable."
Was this my wild guess - {with the
words "wild guess" created by you and which you claimed is my
creation} - or are the "pent-up social
pressures" not indicating
some "pressures pent up from inside" and
not pressure from outside
?
Do you know what is the meaning of
the term : "pent-up" ?
Further, from the same paragraph
that you have extracted - can you discern the choice of words which
reflect the present day situation in Singapore - where current
"social, economic, and political stresses" and that these
will "takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of
Singaporeans that leads to "sudden political swings that
are unpredictable".
Perhaps you are making these
"wild guesses" with your own preferred conclusions to my statement,
when the situation has been said to
be "unpredictable" ?
Do you understand the word -
"unpredictable" ?
So
did I ever claim tat A is gonna "implode" or "collapse" ? I
only claim my interpretation of your wild guess. I never claim A is
dead or something. Similarly, I never claim B is gonna die from
diabetes as well. All tis r your claims. And u flip flop and claim
B has different outcomes as well. Your argument of forcing me to
come out with a conclusion of B is groundless and lacking of
sincerity. It seems u have not answered my previous points which I
had proved and brought up. Why don't u try to answer them first ?
BTW, U add a number 8 in tis reply
Are you not suggesting Character A
to be Singapore - which you had also claimed will implode
?
As for Character B, you
certainly did not say B will die from diabetes, in the
same way that you have not been saying
that China's high level of corruption
will result in her collapse - but iinstead you prefer to
indicate that China will "screw up big time" by indulging in
some "daylight raping" of intellectural properties and
patent rights
If you can claim that
Singapore will "implode" - which means "collapse" - as your
external pressure will squeeze flat the Singapore vessel,
causing its shape to collapse; why will you not dare say that
China's high level of corruption will cause it to
collapse too ?
1. The stand which I had stated is
always the same, summarised in the reply on 15 Jul 1028 am
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why
singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability
is better than china and other countries in the
region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china.
There r many other factors china have which singapore do
not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still
manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they
r better in political stability.
Have u ever shown tat I flip flop from the original stand I made ?
No. U r just playing with words and number all the while
To prevent confusion, it will be
good that you stick to your "black-and-white" for your replies, as
the two prapagraphs can be mistaken as my
reply.
If you have been more honest
with the manner in quoting my replies, instead
of cutting inconvenient parts from my replies, you
will probably have read my list of your
ingeneous flip-flops - in the manner you meander from
one point to another, till you even lose focus and do not
even remember the statement was made by yourself.
It is stupid to ask
again here on Pg 7, and rehashing old issues that you
have avoided but repeating it again as if the matter remain
uncleared and avoided on my part.
On Pg 5, 15Jul'08 8.06PM - my
reply from this date alone will show several instances that showed
you losing track in "who said what" -
that also dealt with the investments that you claim
China's severe corruption has made Singapore's stability to be
more attractive for foreign investors - and which I showed that FDI
into China is greater than Singapore despite your claim to China's
severe corruption.
The rest is history as seen in
your flip-flop arguments trying to extrictate yourself from
the hole that you have dug yourself into.
2. I had posed a question repeatedly which is left unanswered.
According to u, singapore still attract a lot of investors. Since
cost is a big issue now, why does singapore still succeed in
attracting investors ? However u repeatedly ignore tis question
which shows your sincerity in discussing
This is another one of your
typical out-of-focus point where you forget that it was your own
claim that Singapore remain an attraction for investors.
We have been down this road
before, in which your claim of political stability was deem by you
to be a primary factor, and which you disputed the claim that the
term "stability is a primary factor" was your term of
reference, and which I had listed the frequencies of your replies
that continuously emphasised "Singapore's stability".
Why are you rehashing this matter
again - by insisting that I have ignored replying your question,
when I had also said that investors do not necessarily need to come
to Singapore as in the case of HP, Canon or Epson printer
manufacturers, or any other businesses that may find Singapore's
cost too high for their business ?
I have stated this before and
repeating it again - and you seem to be satisfied only when a
reply fits the mould and form that you expect : in which you
insist that Singapore's stability is attractive to the high
value industries such as petroleum, chemical, bio-tech
industires.
I have stated that this is
nonsense as the tax incentives and government grants given in
the initial stages may have attracted these industries here, but
you disputed this claim.
Is there any purpose to belabor
this point by being misleading in your claim that I continue to
ignore your question - which is mischieviously
juvenile at best ?
3. U start to claim tat singapore is not political stable because
it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic
eruption". It is basically a hypothesis which u can never
prove since it is looking into the future, which u clearly cannot,
and society now is not showing such signs. Tis is wild guesses
which I point it out and u seemed to be unhappy about it. U claimed
I made wild guesses on china corruption which i can prove using the
words from Hu jintao. Tis shows your accusation as
wrong.
4. Then u lie and claimed I conclude
china is gonna collapse. There is nothing I had said tat suggests
tat and u give up trying to prove it
5. When it is clear u failed to read properly, u accused me of
writing badly. Tis again has never been substantiated except for
the single word "implosion". Let me question u staight. Does tis
single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ? All
these r metophors, and implosion or explosion r violent processes.
Just because we view the collapsing differently according to your
example, u cannot comprehend the whole sentence ?
6. Then on the reply u stated on 10 Jul 1243 u claimed china is not
gonna collapse
Fortunately, present measure have
been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and
systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem,
and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the
corrupt have been put in place.
then on the reply earlier at 18 jul 144 am
If
you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a
collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following
extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report -
U had flip flopped on your stand on china corruption and whether
will it collapse or not
7. Then now u r forcing me to make a conclusion on the effect on
corruption on china eventually. Tat is totally irrelevant to the
discussion or the point which I wanna bring out
8. Then u claim I made conclusion
on singapore collapse. Tis is again another fabricated lie since I
never claim singapore is collapsing and it is all derivation from
your wild guess
Now you have shown your ingeneous
self again.
3. Can you be so sure
that the PAP should lose more seats by Election 2010, and the
Opposition Parties gaining more seats in the Singapore Parliament
as time progresses ? Does this need to be proven, or should it
remain as a hypothesis ?
4. Did I lie by stating
that you had "concluded tat china is gonna
collapse", or have I not stated that I have done you a favor
by projecting your line of argument towards this end, since your
conclusion had avoided stating the obvious - when comparing
Singapore's collapse by "implosion", while refusing to state
China's final outcome with her state of "severe corruption" except
to digress into "China will screw up big time, as she indulges in
patent right infringements and abuses" ?
5. Was it poor reading on my part,
and poor wrriting on your part - or was it not a matter of your
wilful intellectual dishonesty, when you will make a
"decisive assumed conclusion" for Singapore, but will not do the
same for China ?
6. Now you are being disingenious
by extracting small sections of the exchanges that we had on this
subject - which began with your infamous remark about China's
severe corruption level {but refusing to give any conclusion
despite giving one implosive remark for Singapore}, and with this
continuing into a FDI comparison between China and
Singapore.
7. Your reply confirms my
statement that you are intellectually dishonest - when you can
claim Singapore consequence to be implosive {obviously
destructive}, but will not given any eventual conclusion for
China's state of "severe corruption".
8. Does anyone need to make any
"wild guesses" from your conclusion with the
choice of word - "implosion" - to
my statement about
"pent-up social pressures may lead to a Karakatoa social
outburst" ?
Have you not defined
"implosion" as some outside pressure crushing inwards
?
Are you now denying the use of the
word "implosion" with its intended meaning that
Singapore is crushed from some outside pressure ?
The problem is with your reading
skill - which you refused to accept - in grabbing some headlines,
and missing out on other parts of my text - {"see the tree but
losing sight of the forest"}.
You believed that
my "Karakatoa
outburst" from "pent-up pressures" will lead to an
"implosion" - a conclusion that you assumed
that I have intended - but you failed to read the end of my
paragraph which had stated: "...that leads to sudden
political swings that are unpredictable".
Is the word "unpredictable" comparable
to your word "implosion" that surely leads one to
think of a very decisive and conclusive end for
Singapore ?
Have I lied in any
way about your claims ? You seem to be fixated with making me into
a liar through your creative delusionary interpretations to my
replies.
Now
are you not dishonestly mixing two different points into one,
simply to create confusion to allow yourself to be
extricated from a hole you have dug yourself into
?
The first point was
concerning Singapore's "Karakatoa explosion" with your very
conclusive definition to the word "implosion", which
was followed by your coyness in giving a
similarly conclusive or possible outcome for China's severe
corruption.
The second was about your CEO
decision to invest in Singapore, or Zimbabwe or the
Congo.
Why are you now lumping this two
points into one issue ?
Again another unjustified
conclusion followed by mud slinging. Is tat all u can do now ?
Making unjustified conclusions ?
Your first point is invalid
because it is derives from your interpretation of singapore. I
never claimed a conclusion for singapore nor china simply because I
cannot see the future which u always appear to do.
Congo and zimbabwe are examples of
the other extreme end of political stability. Generally CEO of
firms do not go about investing in countries with low political
stability to safeguard themselves. And political stability is the
point i wanna bring out
Now you are such a genius in
arguing that I am making unjustified conclusions - is it not due to
the fact that my reply do not fit your preferred agenda
?
Did I give you the appearance
of my ability to see the future even when I had made
the following end remark to my statement concerning
Singapore's "pent-up emotion" will lead to "sudden
plitical swings that are unpredictable" ?
So it is also to be my fault
for your conclusion that Singapore will "implode" due
to the "pent-up pressures leading to a Karakatoa outburst"
? Or should it not be due to your poor and careless
reading skills in grabbing the emotional phrase, and missed out the
less exciting end remark ?
Is it not due to your poor
skills in argument that result in my point to become
invalid ?
You have now
disinegeously elevated yourself from not only being
"Stupid-is-Smart" but also to become "Stupid-is-Genius"
The other flip-flops have been
outlined in my reply on Pg 5, 15 Jul 08 8.06PM - in which I
had gone through 10 exchanges that we had on one topic alone,
followed by a Summary indicating the way you flip flop with each
reply made.
Come on la... I have rebutt your
flip flopping since the reply on 15 Jul 1028, which is just 2 hours
from your earlier posting. Wat is your so called evidence about ?
It is your failure to understand tat your report is supporting the
fact tat hong kong is trying their best to attract peole over.
And u agree with me on the 18 Jul 144
Have you made any rebuttal or
simply to re-state your positions with additional words, or
changing the original statement with new explanation
?
Was it my failure to understand my
report, or your own preferred interpretation to convince yourself
that my understanding was wrong ?
Did I agree with you in my
reply on 18 Jul 1.44AM at the top of Pg 7 ?
This reply alone reflects the
delusion that you stand on - to claim success, when your
position has been repeatedly debunked on more then one
occassion, and you had even withdrawn your statements - {such
as China will not invest in failed states such as Zimbabwe and the
Congo} - or simply quote me out of context to suit your
agenda.
So it was shown in the Report
that Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract
talents.
And u did not successfully prove
tat singapore has more immigrants who r millionaires. So it
concludes u think i flip flop but actually, u have a weak
comprehensive skill to even understand your own report and u give
unsubstantiated conclusion.
Have I not proven Singapore has
more immigrants who are millionaires, when the immigration numbers
have been given, and other reports have been published and are
easily available that state:-
“Given the kind of affluent foreigners the
government wants to woo, Singaporeans worry they will become
“second-class citizens” in their own country, at a time when many
poorer Singaporeans already feel left behind because of a widening
income gap. Singapore’s immigration plan is unique because it would
boost the population by 50 per cent, to the point where those born
in Singapore would barely form a majority in their own country”
Even as Hong Kong attempt to draw
foreign talent, they are not as vigorous as to increase their
population by 50 per cent, and they have shown that there are only
1,910 migrants who are determined as millionaires.
I am surprised that you will not
risk making some reasonable assumptions from Singapore's immigrant
numbers, but you will make an "authoratative wild
guess" that Singapore will "implode" - based on
my clear statement that "pent-up pressures and Karakatoa
outbursts will lead to unpredictable political
swings".
Was
it mine statement that Singapore attract alot of investors, or was
it your own delusion that Singapore's Political Stability has
resulted in the attraction of many investments from your C.E.O.'s
decisions ? Or did you make a mistake in reading parts of some
sentence to suit your conclusion to have me take your
credit ?
I say tat political stability is
one of the key points in attracting business to tis region. Your
report indicate tat there r a high amount of investors coming
over (14 jul 627). It indicate tat singapore is only 1/2
times lesser than china despite china being so many times
bigger, so many times cheaper and so many times larger domestic
market than singapore and it is the 3rd in the
region.
So again, u kill yourself and
confirming my points by providing the report
Are you not deluding
yourself when the statement - "u kill yourself"
- more applicable to your deluded position ?
Have you forgotten your
reference point in your argument, or have you lost
track ?
You said alot about Singapore's
political stability, and you said just as much about China's
"severe corruption level" that can "screw up big
time" - and also suggested that CEO's should pick Singapore
more then any other countries for the unique "political
stability" not found anywhere else.
Two reports were given in my
reply on Pg 5, 14Jul'08 6.27AM : -
“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China reaching
another record high of US$74.8 Billion in 2007”
“Global Research confirmed Singapore’s FDI at
US$36.9 Billion coming in third after China and Hong Kong”
Both reports had debunked your
claim that Singapore "Political Stability" is an important factor
to be considered, and showed that despite China's "severe
corruption levels" that leads them to "screw up big
time" - China had attracted more investor confidence in the
larger FDI inflow into China.
Are you not deluding yourself to
be able to continue to breathe life into your useless position in
continuing to find new words to bolster your failed position with
new clarifications ?
Was it "Karakatoa volcanic
outburst" or was it an "eruption" ?
Ok my bad... I wrote the word
outburst instead of eruption. My, does it change the meaning
completely. Is tat all u can do ? Attack based on One
word.
Was it only one word ?
Or did this not started with your
infamous prejudice towards Zimbabwe and Congo, and your
"implosive" conclusion about my "pent-up Karakatoa outburst", as
well as your deluded arguments about Singapore's supreme "political
stability", and also the deluded number of "home grown
millionaires" compared to Hong Kong ?
With the words underlined, and ending
the statement - with word "unpredictable" - how did you so cleverly
read it as "wild guess" ?
U have to read the previous reply
on 10 jul 1022 am. Why I say it is wild guess is simply
because u r extrapolating into the future. Furthermore, your
prediction is completely different from current status. Unless u
can prove yourself to be capable of reading into the future, then
it is a wild guess. Tis is not derived from your word
"unpredictable"
Your position was based on your
wrong assumption
that what I had printed in clear words must be extrapolated into
the future - and your wrong assumption was based on
your own "wild guesses" in your desparate attempt to find some
small crack to bust my position.
Did I "conclude China is gonna
collapse" or was I doing you a favor when you refuse to make
any conclusion with your statement that China
have "a high level of
corruption", and digress
to "They can screw u
up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or
copy all your design and sell in another
name." ?
As
said, the reason for mentioning china is because I want to prove
singapore is more politically stable than china. And tat is
it. Why do I have to give a stupid conclusion (which u
conclude differently on different responses) ?
What
could be the reason for you to avoid saying the final outcome of
China's high level of corruption that continue without
any efforts to stop it - when you have been so outspoken
to offer Singapore Karakatoa volcanic outburst to indicate that
Singapore will implode ?
Please read the above on the
derivation based on your description on the
word "implosion"
Did you not claim that being
"Stupid-is-Smart" ?
Should we not expect a "stupid
conclusion" from you after making such a "stupid statement" about
"china's sever level of corrtuption" and leaving it
hanging - when this statement from you had
immediately followed your decisive remark that Singapore
would have "imploded" ?
Enough has been said in the
preceding paragraphs on this subject to confirm the density in
your claim that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Lets use the dictionary then. From
dictionary .com,
Right minded : having correct,
honest, or good opinions or principles
Then try to answer the
following
1. The argument on right
minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make
false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or
not
Now you have finally used the
dictionary to get the right meaning, but unfortunately did you fail
to link the meaning of the word "right-minded" to your
statement - "Depends on
whether u encourage people to make false claims or
not" ?
Can "Right minded" persons
- with qualities that are "correct, honest, or good
opinions or principles" - make false claims, or
"encourage people to make
false claims"
?
Was this not what I had asked
earlier and which you had quoted : "Would any right minded persons make false
claims ? "
This matter would have been
resolved 3 or 4 pages earlier, except that you prefer to avoid the
issue with your deluded thinking.
Have we concluded this, or do you
wish to continuing arguing for the sake of argument ?
2. Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims
in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's
beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of
example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can
u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
These are all your assumptions -
based on your own beliefs that everybody make false claims in
politics.
Can we trust you for your
displayed dishonesty that you have stated for yourself ?
I know with some certainty that
- NO
Singaporean will make a false claim that being
"Stupid-is-Smart" - PERIOD - which makes
most
Singaporean to be "right minded" and can be trusted, except
for ONE who believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart"
3. U response
Are these instances - that you
have given - the works of "right minded persons"
?
Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether
do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
4. I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded
according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is
impossible for everyone in society to be right minded
Are you suggesting that
most Singaporeans
cannot be "right minded" - based on the dictionary explanation of
what "right minded" is that you should have concluded much earlier
?
Seriously, do you think that
George Bush and Dick Cheney is "right minded" - based on the
description from your Dictionary.com; and secondly from their
decisions to attack Iraq ?
Should you be left
alone to believe that "Stupid-is-Smart" - and allow
you to make everyone to be cloned to be the same as
You, or worst ?
5. Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore
population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on
geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all
singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George
bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point
which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is
tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the
questions posed
Was there an "under-lying"
question in your question - "do u think singapore population can all be
right minded"
?
As I have said before - you are
crafty, but unfortunately, you still cannot and have
not proven that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
6. Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given
to prove - tat despite being in
a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated
doesn't make u "right minded" ?
Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy,
democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of
examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as
george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which
area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r
in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r
educated. Accoridng to u, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong
with these examples ?
Have you given "a ton of
examples" across 7 pages of this thread ?
It must have been very ingeniously
presented to be only visible to your eyes
only.
If you believe that George Bush,
Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian are "right minded" - I will not
doubt your ability in being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Regretably, I cannot speak
for them - that they can accept your idea that being
"Stupid-is-Smart" as they are not stupid, but all three are
surely not "right minded" politicians - {based on the
definition given from your Dictionary.com}.
7. U claim tat "right minded people" will "stand up" against
people who r not "right minded" in a democracy. I asked u where r
the people during the korea beef standoff u have no reply. I ask u
where r the right minded people when democratic countries people r
asking for fuel subsidy and u have no reply
You seem to have a mischevious
skill at missing out replies already given and rehash it to be a
failure on my part to address the issue.
Did you miss my reply on Pg 5
- 14Jul'08 6.27AM ?
8. U also flip flop when u first mention tat the korea who r
protesting in the US beef issue not being right minded. Then u
later try to support these group of people when they protest.
Doesn't tat give the conclusion u r not right minded ? U also make
a lot of false claims as well, from the many examples I have shown.
Then u have shown u r not right minded as well isn't it ?
No, there is only one "not right
minded" person in this Speakers' Corner to expect someone to
believe himself to be like you - to believe that being
"Stupid-is-Smart".
You will have to try
harder by reading very carefully the text of the
exchanges on this topic alone from Pg 3 to Pg 5 - if you intend to
prove your point more conclusively that I have flip-flop
instead of indulging in some kiddie blame-game.
Try a lollipop as you read, it
will help.
9. U also claim I make a flip flop in the 3 sentences u provided
earlier. Wat is your comment on it now ? How come u r completely
silent on tis ? Do u wanna apologise for framing me ?
Which 3 sentences are you
referring to ? Are you so desparate for an apology from me that you
will lay claim without even giving any references ? If need be, I
will send you a lollipop to pacify your pain.
I am surprised that despite
the mountain of verbal abuses, you have been able to surmount the
abuses and still will desire to come back for more.
I am immune to verbal abuses. Personally, I always believe if
the other party uses verbal abuses, it makes him look bad. To me
the more u use verbal abuses, the more u r killing yourself. If u
think tat just simply claiming the others without verification is
gonna work, then u r mistaken
I am immune to others looking at
me - as good or bad. I always believe that anyone who defy
common sense cannot be good - especially one who not only
mischeviously believe that "Stupid-is-Smart", but will insist
with the smug stupidty while attempting to be
supremely smart.
You
seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right
minded" and "right minded persons".
So do u wanna apologise to me for u interpretating wrongly into
correct statements ?
Apology ? Are you deluded ? Should
you not apologise for the wastage of the server capacity, in
arguing your perverse logic across 7 pages to tax the server
capacity ?
Have I not proven to you that a
country with poor political stability have not deterred China from
investing in Zimbabwe ?
Tis
time u r really going one big circle. U have mentioned china
before, and I have also explained on your china example before. On
your CEO thingy, we have been going about tis for the longest of
time as well isn't it ? U rebut me I rebut
u for many pages, then u come back to square one again ? Wa
lau...
Never mind, u wanna go back to square one, lets
go back to square one
My reply has followed your train
of incoherent and inaccurately extracted quotes from my replies. If
this has gone one full circle, it is due to your own manner of
laying out your devious ideas and arguments to fit your
agenda.
Not so clever to behave in this
dishonest way.
Should you not owe me an apology
for a very devious accusation ?
Have I not proven to you that a
country with poor political stability have not deterred China from
investing in Zimbabwe ?
Yup, china do seems keen to invest in africa.But china is a
country. They has the potential to provide arms to Mugabe. China
can help mugabe veto UN sanction. China also have influence in
other african nations which determine how the african union
response to his "election". If china is pissed off, they have the
potential to start a war with mugabe in the same manner as wat
US done to Iraq. Do u have such strength as a CEO of a printing
company ? How can u compare one of the most powerful country in the
world with a normal company ?
Only you will believe that China
can extend her military power into Africa to attack Mugabe or any
other African state, when everyone will not see China projecting
her military power - not in at least another 20 years from now,
when China has so much problems to resolve.
Can anyone blame you for not using
your devious ways in more productive areas to hook-up with despots,
who are running out of fans and supporters ?
As I have said before - you
may not make the grade as a CEO - for lacking in
entrepreneurialship, and being risk averse. How can
anyone teach you to know that in place as desparate as
Zimbabwe, if you are able to strike a perfect balance with a
criminal like Robert Mugabe, you maybe well make
your zillions in Zimbabwe
U think it is tat easy ? Oh.. just go to his country, talk with
him and he give u a billion dollars deal then u become a
zillionaire in zimbabwe dollars. Do u know wat is the problem ? He
don't keep his words. He break promises repeatedly and he have no
problem taking land from British at his whim and want. If u think u
can strike such a balance, then prove it. Show me a
normal company tat had strike underhand deal with zimbabwe and
earn billions from them. Otherwise u r saying the whole world CEOs
r more stupid than u.
Now, why have you
so quickly proved to me that it is not possible
to believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart", when you
to state the obvious that Mugabe will "give u a billion dollars
deal" by just going into
Zimbabwe ?
Only you will believe that he do
not keep his words, and break promises repeatedly, and that he will
do all the bad things that he has done to the British.
Are you British ? Are you Robert
Mugabe's political opponent ?
With your ability at
making "black-or-white" choice - to decide that
either you are a CEO or you cannot even attempt to be one.- you
have confirmed that you are definitely not CEO material, as I have
said from the beginning.
Are there no companies on earth to
trade with Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe ?
Only you will believe that there
are no risk takers - with the Indianna Jones spirit - to go
into places that nobody will dare to go.
Try digesting from the
following:-
“Zimbabwe: Camec Under Fire for Doing Business With
Country”
Just in case, you think that the
above is Zibabwean propaganda, the same event was also published in
the tabloids in UK.
Telegraph.co.uk - “Business and morality: Is Phil
Edmonds right to trade with Robert Mugabe”
There there is also the other
business plans of other British Companies, who still will want to
return to Zimbabwe despite being targetted by Robert Mugabe's
anti-British policies.
TimesOnLine - “Three options in Zimbabwe for British
business”
Why will you not give yourself a
chance to make your zillion dollar - whether Zimbabwean zillion or
not ?
First, you claim China do invest
in Zimbabwe, now you claim that no one will trust Robert Mugabe and
no one will be prepared to invest in Zimbabwe.
I have no wish to drive home a
dead point about your abilities.
With your selective approach
in leaving out whole portions of my replies for your
response, are you being devious in making my piece too
incoherent for you tor make any sensible reply - except to ask
"Wat r the previous statement u
said ? "
Then, state out now wat u wanna say then. Why another accusation
without justification ? It is time for your counter attack, do
it.
Did you not ask - "Wat r the previous statement u said
?" - how do you expect
anyone to reply you when you do not even make an honest
effort to quote correctly ?
Why will you not be truly smart
and admit that you simply cannot accept the replies given, as
it simply do not fit the mould that you want my replies to be,
so as to make it convenient for you to justify a hopeless
position ?
another mud slinging reply huh.. no justification, no evidence
but just accusation
What
is there for you to comment when you discover the silly mistakes
that began with a false premise in your displayed smartness
?
Only you will delude yourself with
a fantasy of being able to debunk anyone's position, counting
across the 7 pages, I see your style as conveniently skipping out
paragraphs from my replies, which allow you to reply on issues
taken out of context and giving yourself an easier task to tackle.
Surely you can beat any points when taken out of context - we will
cheer your superiority in idiotlogy.
Again another no evidence just accusation reply.
Again, what is there for you to
comment when you discover the silly mistakes that began with a
false premise in your displayed smartness ?
Is there anything that needs to be
proven, when the evidence exist in the Real World ?
Why will you want to re-invent the
wheel - by beginning from an untenable premise that being
"Stupid-is-smart" ?
Again, another lie u had made on me and u cannot back up the
challenge. I already issue a challeng straight on to your face but
u refuse to back it up. Doesn't tat show u r a lier and frankly
speaking I am surprised u still have the face to hurl another
verbal abuse over at tis point in time
Not so smart to quote out of
context, and leaving out the central body of my last reply that you
are making reference to now.
It merely make you dishonest, and
a desparate liar.
If you deny that there is no such
thing as a "democratic economy" - why did you give such a
perfect understanding in your riddle given, and yet will ask a
superlative question to end the riddle in asing:"Then wat is the use of democracy in politics
?"
Did u read the reply
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic"
economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic
economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important
characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in
politics "
According to u, "democratic economy" is the main thing to make
an economy rich. Now we know there is no such thing as a
"democratic economy" since u cannot prove out the term. However
previously u mention such a thing before so I assume it is
there waiting for u prove it out. It is then treated
as "a characteristic tat ensure riches to the people". In your
example, u proved tat a democratic political situation does not
bring about riches to the economy while an undemocratic political
situation can bring about riches. Tat bring to the point of wat is
the value of democracy ? Everybody wanna have a good life in the
end. Going for democracy means u want to have a better richer life
and not going for demcracy just for the sake of following western
countries.
Again your "black-or-white"
choice at understanding issues is simply making your education
a very agonising and painful one for yourself.
The issue has been stated : and if
you cannot read what has been posted, it is best that you breakdown
the each word in the statements made and have it defined by your
Dictionary.com:
For
governance is really a notion to convey what government is for and
how it is best carried out. In other words, it implies a close
association between the political domain and, first, the economic
domain for which it is meant to deliver the 'what', and, secondly,
the social domain via which it is meant to achieve the
'how'.
and the next piece stated and
which you have quoted:
According to researches, employees are very
sensitive not only to what orders are given, but also to how they
are given. Management theories embody four main leadership
management styles. Those are autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire
and exceptional management
styles.
Both of the paragraphs in Italics
have been my reply from reference researched pieces, and it will do
you well to take the trouble to understand each word before making
your task harder to prove that being -
"Stupid-is-Smart".
Do you understand what is
"democracy" and its inter-relationship with "democratic
practices" - compared to the term "autocracy" and "autocratic
practices" - with the word "practices" covering a broad front
?
Come on la... u come out with terms like "democratic economy"
when there is no such terms. Now u twist and turn and try to ignore
the phrase "democratic economy" ? I am still waiting for u to prove
your confusing term "democratic economy". I am challenging u, face
on, tat u back up your term "democratic economy" otherwise u r just
a lier tat derive your own terms and twist and turn them many
times.
Is the term "Democratic Economy"
my creation, or simply your own inability to grasp the concepts of
Democracy beyond the realms of politics ?
Will you have the
intellectual capacity to digest the following
?
The Democratic Economy
A Democratic Economy and a Democratic Worklife
Why a Democratic Economy would be a more efficient
economy – Part I
TimesOnLine - “Three options in Zimbabwe for British
business”
Is there any reason to claim that
anything do not exist due to the fact of your own incapability to
look for the thins needed ?
Were you wrongly accused ?
Were the words so simply put in the manner that you have
stated ? Am I so careless to mention - "hong kong is equal to
mention china"
U got to see the reply u made then
Are you not being petty about
China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part
of China ?
Would you believe that
China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst
from you ?
So explain tis sentence u had made. U claim u had put china into
the picture by stating hong kong. Did u or did u not mean tat ?
Hong kong is part of china is a fact no one is disputing. The
dispute is on u purposefully removing china from the name and u
claiming u have put china's name in by listing only hong kong.
China is more than hong kong and your report had listed them
differently as well.
Did you not attempt to find from
Dictionary.com the meaning of the word "bait" ?
Are the statements not clear
enough ?
Am I to be blamed for your
inability to accept Hong Kong alone being compared with
Singapore, when you insist that its numbers are to be
seen as part of the bigger China - when even researchers will
normally treat both separately for specific reasons.
If u r gentlemanly enough to
acknowledge u should have put china inside the list, or u
purposefully not put in the name becaue it is not democratic then
there will be no conflicts.
The problem is, u claim u had put
china name in by listing hong kong. U also make tons of verbal
abuses over sentences which u failed to read properly and u flip
flop on your stand by stating u purposely not put in china. All tis
is simply to show your flip flopping nature and your lack of
understanding to other people statement and your own
report.
On Pg 4 - 11Jul'08 4.45AM - I had
posted the following statements:
[Quote]
Surely you are not serious in
taking yourself so brilliantly to believe that a democratic
and open society do not produce more millionaires ?
Try reading the following 2007
report - Number of millionaires surges in Asia – India leads
the way http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1128060
After reading this article, you
will note that India - the leading democracy in Asia - has
seen a surge of about 25,000 persons gaining millionaire
status in the US$ denominated qualification.
Hong Kong saw an
addition of more then 9,000 persons to boost its millionaires
to a new high of 95,000 - followed by South Korea Indonesia
and Singapore - all three countries preceding Singapore being more
democratic compared to Singapore.
[UnQuote]
Both India and Hong Kong are
considered democracies in Asia - politically, and as stated India
had transformed its autocratic bureaucracy into a more
democratic form to manage its economy in a more liberal and
democratic ways than before.
This was stated in my replies to
you from Pg 3 to Pg 5 - why will you persist to justify
your position taken in insisting a reply to suit your own agenda
?
Should China be considered with
India and Hong Kong - when the initial standard of measure was
Political Democracies ?
Anticipating your habit of
"arguing for the sake of argument" - I was expecting you to find
some reasons to chip at my statement, and it was obvious that you
will bring in the subject of China's millionaires.
You will note that China's
political system may not be democratic at the national level, even
as it attempt to introduce political responsibility at the village
level by allowing villages to elect their own officials.
You will also note that even as
China's national political system is not democratic, it has
liberalise its economic management, successfully transforming
the Stalinist Central Planning economy to a Market Based Economy.
This has resulted in wealth creation to the masses, and saw
millionaires amongst the more entrepreneurial and resourcefull
Chinese.
Why will you want to pursue your
own argument - {about China being included} - outside of the
terms of reference in my statement - {which only included
millionaires from Asian democracies} ?
Have I agreed on anything with my
reply ?
Did I print anything in the blank
space between each lines with words as expressed ?
Surely, you cannot be so desparate
to this end ?
U remember your so
called 10 points "evidence" of me "flip flopping" ? Your point
9 and 10 explicitly say I make a mistake about your report and
"flip flopping" my way out. However I clarify my position by
telling u your report is stating hong kong is trying its very best
to pull in millionaires as well, which can only give a inconclusive
conclusion since no one knew how many singapore immigrants r pulled
in. After tis, u never mention about your so called "10 points" of
evidence again. In fact u begin to fight in another tangent based
ont he report. Isn't tat already u conceding your ten points r
flukes
This has been argued in the
paragraph above, and I cannot see any reason for you to return to
this point again - but if you insist, I will give you additional
reasons why you are wrong in your thinking.
Is Hong Kong targetting
millionaires specifically, or are they targetting talents to help
them establish Hong Kong as a Financial Hub ?
Is Hong Kong's immigration policy
as aggressive as Singapore's plans to increase our population size
by 50 per cent from the present size ?
According to
reference reports - given in the paragraphs before this
- Singapore is reported to be targetting specifically
foreign talents who are entrepreneurs, and also the successful
professionals : in the field of Bio-Tech, Financial Market
Managers or Consultants, Bankers, Specialist Lawyers, and
mainly those from the Upper Income Bracket who are basically
the million dollar wage earners.
Can Hong Kong immigration policy
be comparable to Singapore's ?
Was there any flip-flop, when it
was you who insisted that Singapore had 66,660 home grown
Singaporean millionaires - and will not accept that many of these
66.660 are NOT home-grown Singaporeans - which
led you to dispute that the larger number of
Hong Kong millionaires are similarly attracted from
overseas ?
I did not say tat the 66660
millionaires r all home grown. Did I ever state tat all the
millionaires r home grown ? NO. Another lie which u fabricated on
my replies.
I only state tat Hong kong and
singapore r both trying their best to attract millionaires over.
Your report shows only f
